Performance Analysis of the IEEE 802.
11 MAC and Physical Layer Protocol
Mohammad Hossein Mamshaei, Gion Reto Cantieni∗, Chadi Barakat, and Thierry Turletti
Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA)
2004 route des Lucioles, Sophia-Antipolis, France 06902
Telephone: +33492387610, Fax: +33492387978
Email: {manshaei,barakat,turletti}@sophia.inria.fr
Abstract
We present in this paper an analytical model that ac-
counts for the positions of stations with respect to the Ac-
cess Point (AP) while evaluating the performance of 802.11
MAC layer. Our work is based on the Bianchi’s model
where the performance of 802.11 MAC layer is computed
using a discrete time Markov chain, but where all stations
are implicitly assumed to be located at the same distance
to the AP. In our model, given the position of one station,
we compute its saturation throughput while conditioning
on the positions of the other concurrent stations. Further,
our model provides the total saturation throughput of the
medium. We solve the model numerically and we show that
the saturation throughput per station is strongly dependent
not only on the station’s position but also on the positions of
the other stations. Results confirm that a station achieves a
higher throughput when it is closer to the AP but bring out
that there is a distance threshold above which the through-
put decrease is fast and significant. When a station is far
from the AP compared to the other stations, it will end up
by contending for the bandwidth not used by the other sta-
tions. We believe that our model is a good tool to dimension
802.11 wireless access networks and to study their capaci-
ties and their performances.
1 Introduction
Nowadays, the IEEE 802.11 WLAN technology of-
fers the largest deployed wireless access to the Internet.
This technology specifies both the Medium Access Control
(MAC) and the Physical Layers (PHY) [1]. The PHY layer
selects the correct modulation scheme given the channel
conditions and provides the necessary bandwidth, whereas
the MAC layer decides in a distributed manner on how the
∗ Corresponding author’s present address: Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, Email: gion-
reto.cantieni@epfl.ch
offered bandwidth is shared among all stations (STAs). This
standard allows the same MAC layer to operate on top of
one of several PHY layers.
Different analytical models and simulation studies have
been elaborated the last years to evaluate the 802.11 MAC
layer performance. These studies mainly aim at computing
the saturation throughput of the MAC layer and focus on
its improvement. One of the most promising models has
been the so-called Bianchi model [2]. It provides closed-
form expressions for the saturation throughput and for the
probability that a packet transmission fails due to collision.
The modeling of the 802.11 MAC layer is an important
issue for the evolution of this technology. One of the major
shortcomings in existing models is that the PHY layer con-
ditions are not considered. The existing models for 802.11
assume that all STAs have the same physical conditions at
the receiving STA (same power, same coding,. . .), so when
two or more STAs emit a packet in the same slot time, all
their packets are lost, which may not be the case in reality
when for instance one STA is close to the receiving STA
and the other STAs far from it [3]. This behavior, called
the capture effect, can be analyzed by considering the spa-
tial positions of the STAs. In [4] the spatial positions of
STAs are considered for the purpose of computing the ca-
pacity of wireless networks, but only an ideal model for the
MAC layer issued from the information theory is used. The
main contribution of this paper is considering both PHY and
MAC layer protocols to analyze the performance of excit-
ing IEEE 802.11 standard. Our work reuses the model for
802.11 MAC layer from [6], and extends it to consider in-
terference from other STAs. We compute, for a given topol-
ogy, the throughput of any wireless STA using the 802.11
MAC protocol with a specific PHY layer protocol.
Without losing the generality of the approach, we only
consider in this paper traffic flows sent from the mobile
STAs in direction to the AP. The case of bidirectional traf-
fic is a straight forward extension; we omit it to ease the
exposition of our contribution. Further, we assume that all
STAs use the Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) of
802.11 and they always have packets to send (case of sat-
urated sources). We present an evaluation of our approach
for 802.11b with data rates equal to 1 and 2 Mbps and the
results indicate that it leads to very accurate results.
In the next section an overview of the IEEE 802.11 MAC
and PHY specifications and the calculation of probability of
packet and bit error in an additive white gaussian channel
are presented. Section 3 addresses some related works on
MAC and PHY layer modeling in IEEE 802.11. In Section
4 we present our model and derive the characterizing equa-
tions for it. The numerical and simulation results obtained
are presented in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper
with some pointers to our future work.
2 Background
Two forms of MAC layer have been defined in IEEE
802.11 standard specification named, Distributed Coordi-
nation Function (DCF) and Point Coordination Function
(PCF). The DCF protocol uses Carrier Sense Multiple Ac-
cess with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) mechanism and
is mandatory, while PCF is defined as an option to support
time-bounded delivery of data frames. The DCF protocol
in IEEE 802.11 standard defines how the medium is shared
among stations. DCF which is based on CSMA/CA, con-
sists of a basic access method and an optional channel ac-
cess method with request-to-send (RTS) and clear-to-send
(CTS) exchanged as shown in Fig. 1.
Other NAV update with RTS and DATA
Source RTS DATA
Destination CTS
Other
NAV update with CTS
time: DIFS SIFS SIFS SIFS
Figure 1. CSMA/CA with RTS/CTS exchange.
If the channel is busy for the source STA, a backoff time
(measured in slot times) is chosen randomly in the inter-
val [0, CW ), where CW is called the contention window.
This timer is decremented by one as long as the channel
is sensed idle for a DIFS (Distributed Inter Frame Space)
time. It stops when the channel is busy and resumes when
the channel is idle again for at least DIFS time. CW is an
integer with the range determined by PHY layer characteris-
tics: CWmin and CWmax . CW will be doubled after each
unsuccessful transmission, up to the maximum value which
is determined by CWmax + 1.
When the backoff timer reaches zero, the source trans-
mits the data packet. The ACK is transmitted by the receiver
immediately after a period of time called SIFS (Short Inter
Frame Space) which is less than DIFS. When a data packet
is transmitted, all other stations hearing this transmission
adjust their Network Allocation Vector (NAV), which is
used for virtual CS at the MAC layer. In optional RTS/CTS
access method, an RTS frame should be transmitted by the
source and the destination should accept the data transmis-
sion by sending a CTS frame prior to the transmission of
actual data packet. Note that STAs in the sender’s range
that hear the RTS packet update their NAVs and defer their
transmissions for the duration specified by the RTS. Nodes
that overhear the CTS packet update their NAVs and refrain
from transmitting. This way, the transmission of data packet
and its corresponding ACK can proceed without interfer-
ence from other nodes (hidden nodes problem).
Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the IEEE
802.11a/b/g physical layers. 802.11b radios transmit at
2.4GHz and send data up to 11 Mbps using Direct Se-
quence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) modulation; whereas
802.11a radios transmit at 5GHz and send data up to 54
Mbps using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
(OFDM) [1]. The IEEE 802.11g standard [1], extends the
data rate of the IEEE 802.11b to 54 Mbps in an upgraded
PHY layer named extended rate PHY layer (ERP).
Table 1. PHY layer Characteristics in 802.11.
PHY Layer Characteristic Available in 802.11/a/b/g
Frequency 5, 2.4 GHz
Data Rates 1, 2, 5.5, 6, 9, 11, 12,
18, 22, 24, 33, 36, 48, 54 Mbps
CW Modulation BPSK, DBPSK, QPSK, DQPSK,
16-QAM, 64-QAM, CCK
Error Correction Code Convolutional codes 1/2, 2/3, 3/4
ACK
CW
DIFS In each physical layer, there is a basic transmission mode
(usually used to send ACK, RTS, CTS and PLCP header)
which has the maximum coverage range among all trans-
mission modes. This maximum range is obtained using
BPSK or DBPSK modulation which have the minimum
probability of bit error for a given SNR compared to other
modulation schemes. It has the minimum data rate as well.
As shown in Fig. 2, each packet may be sent using two dif-
ferent rates; the PLCP header is sent at the basic rate while
the rest of the packet might be sent at a higher rate. The
basic rate is 1 Mbps (with DBPSK modulation and CRC
16 bits) for 802.11b and 6 Mbps (with BPSK and FEC rate
equal to 1/2) for 802.11a. The higher rate used to trans-
mit the physical-layer payload (which includes the MAC
header) is indicated in the PCLP header.
The PLCP Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) frame includes
PLCP preamble, PLCP header, and MPDU. Fig. 3 shows
the format for long preamble in 802.11b. The PLCP pream-
ble contains the following fields: Synchronization (Sync)
2
 Eb
PLCP Header Mac Header + Payload where N 0
is the average signal to noise ratio per bit. The
Eb
N0 of the received signal is derived from SN R using the
Sent with Basic Rate Sent with the rate indicated in PLCP

following relationship:
Figure 2. Packet format in IEEE 802.11. Eb W
= SN R · (4)
N0 Rb
and Start Frame Delimiter (SDF). The PLCP Header con- where Rb (1 and 2 Mbps) is the maximum bit rate of
tains the following fields: Signal, Service, Length, and transmission mode and W (2 MHz) is the unspread band-
CRC. The short PLCP preamble and header may be used width of the signal. Considering the data packet format
to minimize overhead and thus maximize the network data shown in Figure 2 the probability of error for packet is:
throughput. Note that the short PLCP header uses the 2
Mbps with DQPSK modulation and a transmitter using the
p = P ER = 1 − (1 − PeP LCP ) · (1 − PeP ayload ) (5)
short PLCP only can interoperate with the receivers which
are capable of receiving this short PLCP format. In this pa- Where Pe is the probability of error for PLCP (or Pay-
per we suppose that all stations use the long PPDU format load) and is given by:
in 802.11b. We evaluate our model in 802.11b where STAs
use transmission rate equal to 1 and 2 Mbps. Our model Pe = 1 − (1 − Pb )Length (6)
can be employed for all other transmission modes for all
standards if the packet error rate is calculated. Pb is derived from equation 2 and 3 for 1 Mbps and 2
Mbps data rate respectively.
Sent by Basis Mode (1Mbps, 0.192 ms)
Octets: 18 2 1 1 2 2
SYNC SFD Signal Service Length CRC 3 Related Works
PLCP Preamble in 802.11b(144bits) PLCP header in 802.11b(48bits)

There have been various attempts to model and analyze

Figure 3. 802.11b long preamble frame format. the saturation throughput and delay of the IEEE 802.11
DCF protocol since the standards have been proposed. As
explained in the introduction there are different analytical
In this paper, we assume that the noise over the wire- models and simulation studies that analyze the performance
less channel is white Gaussian with spectral density equal of 802.11 MAC layer. As an example Foh and Zuckerman
to N0 /2. In our model we define N0 as the power of the present the analysis of the mean packet delay at different
thermal noise, throughputs for IEEE 802.11 MAC in [5]. Kim and Hou [7]
analyze the protocol capacity of IEEE 802.11 MAC with the
N0 = Nf · Nt = Nf · kT W (1) assumption that the number of active stations having pack-
ets ready for transmission is large. In [8] and [9] they have
where Nf denotes the circuit noise value, k the Boltzmann suggested some extensions to the model proposed in [2] to
constant, T the temperature in Kelvin and W is the fre- evaluate packet delay, the packet drop probability and the
quency bandwidth. For the BPSK modulation1 , the bit error packet drop time. Since in our model we have used the
probability is given by [11]: Bianchi’s model [2] and its extension proposed in [6], we
will detail these models in this section.
Ãr ! Ãr ! Bianchi’s model uses a simple and elegant discrete-time
Eb Eb
PbBP SK = Q 2· =Q 2· (2) Markov chain to analyze the case of saturated STAs, i.e.
N0 N0 STAs that always have packets to send. Wu et al. [6] pro-
posed a scheme named DCF + to enhance the performance
and for QPSK (4-QAM) is: of reliable transport protocol over WLAN and analyzed
it with an extension of Bianchi’s considering finite packet
Ãr ! Ãr ! retry limits as defined in the IEEE 802.11 standard.
Eb 1 Eb
PbQP SK =Q 2· − Q2 2· (3) The retransmission limit is defined in the IEEE
N0 2 N0 802.11 MAC standard specification with the help of
two following counters: Short Retry Count (SRC) and
1 Our expressions for probability of bit error rates are those of BPSK
Long Retry Count (LRC). These counters are incre-
and QPSK, although 802.11 standards use differentially encoded versions
DBPSK and DQPSK for 1 and 2 Mbps, respectively. For coherent detec-
mented and reset independently. SRC is incremented
tion for high SNR values, above BER expressions are applicable to both every time an RTS fails and LRC is incremented
classical and differential modulation schemes. when data transmission fails. Both SRC and LRC

3
are reset to zero after a successful data transmission. Equations (7) and (8) are solved for the values of p and
Data frames are discarded when LRC (SRC) reaches τ . Once these probabilities are obtained, this model com-
dot11LongRetryLimit (dot11ShortRetryLimit). The default putes the saturation throughput Z(p, τ ) of a station. The
values for dot11LongRetryLimit and dot11ShortRetryLimit expression of the throughput is given in Section 4.3, where
are 4 and 7 respectively. Considering this limitation, the we adapt this model to our context. None of the above mod-
Markov chain proposed by Bianchi is modified in [6] as els have considered the channel characteristics (PHY layer).
shown in Fig. 4. Unlike paper [2], in Wu model m is There are a few studies that consider the PHY layer char-
the maximum backoff stage (retransmission count) which acteristics in 802.11 WLANs. We overview them in what
0
is different for data frame and RTS. In Wu model, m repre- follows.
0
sents the maximum contention window, i.e. 2m (CWmin + In [10], the impact of an error-prone channel over all
1) = (CWmax + 1). In fact the key difference between performance measures is analytically analyzed for a traffic
Bianchi model [2] and Wu model [6], is that the Markov saturated IEEE 802.11 WLAN. A modified Markov chain
chain models are different, which is because Wu model con- is used to compute the transmission probability per station:
siders the effects of frame retransmitting limit. the backoff window size that considers the frame-error rates
and the maximal allowable number of retransmission at-

1/W0
tempts. The transition probability from one stage to an-


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
                        



! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
                        



! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
                        



! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
                        



! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
                        



! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

other (in Bianchi’s Markov model) is denoted by p. It is



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
                        



! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 


! 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

1−p 1 1 1 1
(0, 0) (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, W0 − 2) (0, W0 − 1)



p
also the probability of an unsuccessful (re)transmission at-



tempt perceived by a test station as its frame is being trans-

p
































1/Wi






















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































mitted on the channel. They supposed that the unsuccessful
(re)transmission attempt can happen due to: collision of this



































 

 

                                



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






                                



































 

 

                                



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






                                



































 

 

                                



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






                                

1−p 1 1 1 1
(i, 0) (i, 1) (i, 2) (i, Wi − 2) (i, Wi − 1)
p






station with at least one of the n − 1 remaining stations, oc-

curring with probability: p1 = 1−(1−τ )n−1 ; and/or an er-
p































1/Wm
























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































ror frame, occurring with probability Pf (due to the channel



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

                                



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

                                

1
(m, 0)






















































































1


















































































(m, 1)




























1






















(m, 2)





























































1





















(m, Wm − 2)


























1





















(m, Wm − 1)
fading and/or noise). Then they supposed that both events
are independent and the probability p can be expressed as:
p = 1 − (1 − p1 )(1 − Pf )
Figure 4. Markov model for backoff window. Other calculations are similar to the Markov model (see
Equation (8)). Similar to [2] they express the normalized
In this Bianchi model, the time is divided into slots of saturation throughput of IEEE 802.11 DCF within a single
variable duration based on what happens during a slot: no WLAN cell in an error-prone channel.
transmission, correct transmission, collision. The model In [12], an improved analytical model that calculates
computes among others the probability that a station trans- IEEE 802.11 DCF performance taking into account both
mits in a slot τ , the probability that a transmitted packet col- packet retry limits and transmission errors for the IEEE
lides with other transmissions p, and the saturation through- 802.11a protocol is proposed. Their analysis is very sim-
put of a station Z(p, τ ), which is a function of τ and p as ilar to the model presented in [10].
well as other physical parameters. The packet loss proba- Finally, [13] proposes an analytical model to compute
bility is computed as: the throughput for the single and multi-user cases with a
non ideal channel. This model is validated with system sim-
p = 1 − (1 − τ )n−1 (7) ulations in realistic deployment scenarios. Some changes in
Bianchi’s Markov chain model are proposed as well. In ad-
where n is the total number of STAs. The model also dition they have assumed that the probability Pj , (the failure
gives the expression of τ as a function of the packet loss probability viewed by the station when a packet is transmit-
probability p using the Markov chain that describes the sys- ted) is due to either a collision on the channel (with proba-
tem, see Fig. 4. Let B be the function relating p and τ in bility Pcj ) or without collision but error transmission (with
this model, then: probability P ER). Hence: pj = Pcj + (1 − Pcj )P ER
1 − pm+1 None of these models have considered specific physical
τ = B(p) = b0,0 (8) aspects like modulation, FEC, PLCP format in IEEE 802.11
1−p
or the channel characteristics (e.g. the distance between
and b0,0 (Which is the stationary probability to find the the source and the destination). Our approach tries to pro-
Markov chain in state (0, 0)) can be obtained from solving vide more precise results considering these characteristics
the Markov chain as shown in Equation (9). in IEEE 802.11.

4
  2(1−2p)(1−p)

 W (1−(2p)m+1 )(1−p)+(1−2p)(1−pm+1 )
b0,0 =

 2(1−2p)(1−p)
0 0
W (1−(2p)m +1 )(1−p)+(1−2p)(1−pm+1 )+W 2m p(m +1) (1−2p)(1−pm−m )
4 Distance Aware Model
Our model considers the interference from the other
STAs and the background noise to compute the packet loss
probability p. We call it the DAW (Distance AWare) model.
The expression for the transmission probability τ remains
the same as that in Equation (8). The computation of packet
error rate (p) is done under the assumptions we presented in
Section 2.
Let consider an STA k that transmits a packet to the AP
and compute the probability that this packet is lost (i.e., can-
not be decoded correctly). We suppose that this STA is lo-
cated at distance dk from the AP. We denote its packet loss
probability by pk (dk ). Using Equation (5), the packet loss
probability can be computed as follow;
Pk = 1 − (1 − PbP LCP )LP LCP · (1 − PbP ayload )LP ayload ,
(10)
where LP LCP and LP ayload are PLCP and Payload
length respectively, and Pbx is bit error probability for part
x of the packet (PLCP or Payload). Pbx can be computed
using Equation (2) and (3) considering transmission mode.
This expression for Pk assumes that the bit error process is
iid during the reception of the packet and that the data is
not protected by any channel coding scheme. As we need
the packet loss probability averaged over all values of bit er-
rors, we will focus on the computation of the expected value
pk (dk ) = E[Pk ].
To do so, we need to decompose SNR into identically
distributed elements for which a pdf can be defined. Once
such pdf is found, we can obtain pk (dk ) by substituting in
Equation (10) and taking the expectation. In order to de-
compose SNR, we first introduce the Bernoulli random vari-
ables Yi (i = 1, . . . , n), being equal to 1 when STA i trans-
mits a packet in a slot time, and equal to 0 otherwise. Next
step we look for the power of signal transmitted by STA i at
the AP. We denote such power with Xi and we define it as;
Xi = Yi · L(Di ), (11)
where L(Di ) expresses the power with which the sig-
nal of STA i arrives at the AP after being attenuated over
distance Di and calculated using simple path loss model;
P0
L(Di ) = . (12)
Diα
5
0
m≤m
(9)
0
0 0 m>m
In this expression, P0 denotes the STA transmission
power and α, the path loss exponent, determines the loss
rate. We use α = 3 which is commonly used to model loss
in an urban environment [14]. Note that this model for the
power only considers the attenuation caused by the distance
between the emitting terminal and the AP, and ignores other
factors such as mobility, shadowing, multi-path fading, etc.
Having the power of each STA at the AP, we can compute
the interfering power a packet transmitted by STA k faces.
We denote this power by Ik and write it as;
n
X
Ik = Yi · L(Di ). (13)
i6=k
This allows to write the following expression for the
SNR at the AP of a packet/signal coming from STA k at
the given distance dk :
L(dk ) L(d )
SN Rk = = Pn k . (14)
N 0 + Ik N0 + i6=k Yi · L(Di )
N0 is the background noise (see Equation (1)). We can
see that to compute Pk using Equation (10), the only ran-
dom variable is Ik . Hence, having the pdf of Ik , which we
denote by fIk (x), we can compute pk (dk ) = E[Pk ]. As-
suming independence of Yi , as in the Bianchi model, fIk (x)
can be expressed as an n − 1 convolution:
fIk (x) = fX1 ⊗· · ·⊗fXk−1 ⊗fXk−2 ⊗· · ·⊗fXn (x). (15)
In the analysis above, we kept the distance from STA
i to the AP random denoted by Di , except for STA k for
which we are computing pk . Then we compute pk for two
cases. First, we compute it when the stations’ positions are
known (the Di are deterministic): the only randomness in
this case lies in the dynamics of the MAC layer. Second,
we compute pk for a more general case where nodes are
uniformly distributed in the plane.
4.1 Fixed Topologies
Suppose we are given the distance vector D =
{d1 , . . . , dn }, where di describes the distance of STA i to
the access point. Since all distances are fixed, we omit in
this section the index of distance from loss and transmis-
sion probabilities. For an STA k, we aim at finding the pdf
of Ik . Ik gives the interfering power produced by all the
other STAs at the AP. To compute Ik , we need fX (x), the
pdf of the power at the AP of an individual STA. For an
STA i, fXi (x) can be written as:
fXi (x) = δx (0)(1 − τi ) + δx (L(di ))τi , (16)
where δx (x0 ) is a Dirac pulse at x = x0 and τi denotes
the transmission probability of STA i. fIk (x) can be com-
puted using Equation (15). Note that the values τi in fIk (x)
are left unknown.
Using Equation (10) and taking expectation, we get the
packet loss probability of STA k:
pk = E[1 − (1 − PbP LCP )LP LCP · (1 − PbP ayload )LP ayload ]
(17)
For example when the packet is sent with 1 Mbps, the
equation can be simplified as shown in Equation (18) (Since
the PLCP and the payload are sent with the same modula-
tion and data rate).
This expression of pk is a function of the transmission
probabilities of the other STAs via the pdf functions fXi .
From the Bianchi model, the transmission probability of an
STA is related to its collision probability via the function in
Equation (8) (by substituting p by pk and τ by τk ). Thus,
using Equations (8) and (17), we set up a non linear system
of equations, which can be solved numerically for all pk and
τk . Having the pk and τk , the throughput of any STA k can
be computed. This computation is shown in Section 4.3.
4.2 Random Topologies
We consider now the case where the STAs are uniformly
distributed in a disk of radius r around the AP. Thus, the pdf
of D (the distance to the AP of an STA) has the following
form:
2d
fD (d) = {10≤d≤1 } . (19)
r2
Consider an STA k located at distance dk from the AP,
and let us focus at computing its average performance over
all possible positions of the concurrent STAs. As for fixed
topology case, we have to find the pdf of Ik (The interfer-
ence caused by the other STAs at the AP.).
However the computation of fXi (x) (the pdf of signal
power at the AP of a random STA i) becomes more com-
plex. We first write the cumulative distribution function
of Xi (for x ≥ 0), see Equation (20). In this equation,
E[τi (Di )] is the transmission probability of an STA i aver-
aged over all its possible locations. By differentiation and
using the expression of L(Di ), we find the pdf of Xi , see
Equation (21).
Assume that the transmission probability of a random
STA i is only dependent on its own position and indepen-
dent of that of the others. Only the number of the other
6
STAs is supposed to influence the transmission probability
of STA i. This is the case when the number of STAs is large.
Under this assumption, the variables Xi are independent of
each other. We can therefore compute the pdf of Ik using
Equation (15) and (21).
Note that fIk is a function of one unknown E[τi (Di )].
The packet collision probability can be obtained by plug-
ging fIk in Equation (17). We substitute then the expres-
sion of pk (dk ) in Equation (8) to get τk (dk ), the probability
with which STA k transmits a packet in a slot time aver-
aged over all possible positions of the other STAs. Finally,
the throughput of STA k averaged over all locations of the
other STAs can be computed in a similar way to the fixed
case as will be discussed in Section 4.3.
Now we explain how to find the expression of E[τi (Di )].
To solve for this expectation, we write an implicit equation
with E[τi (Di )] as a variable, then we solve this equation
numerically. Equations (21) and (17) give us the expression
of pk (dk ) for STA k as a function of E[τi (Di )]. Denote by
pk (dk ) = G(dk , E[τi (Di )]) this expression. Using 17, we
can write;
τk (dk ) = B(pk (dk )) = B(G(dk , E[τi (Di )])) (22)
We get our implicit equation in E[τi (Di )] by summing
over all the values of dk , as shown in Equation (23).
Z r
2πρdρ
E[τi (Di )] = E[B(pk (dk ))] = B(G(ρ, E[τi (Di )])).
0 πr2
(23)
Once we obtain E[τi (Di )], all transmission probabilities,
collision probabilities and throughput can be obtained using
our above analysis. In summary, for an STA located at dis-
tance dk :
• The packet collision probability pk (dk ) can be ob-
tained by plugging Equation (22) in (17), where the
value of E[τi (Di )] is computed numerically with the
implicit Equation (23).
• The packet transmission probability τk (dk ) is com-
puted by substituting p by pk (dk ) in Equation (8).
• Given pk (dk ) and τk (dk ), the throughput of STA k can
be obtained in a similar way to the Bianchi model. The
throughput of a random STA can be computed as well.
4.3 Throughput Calculation
We now derive the throughput of a single STA k at a
given distance dk . In the case of a fixed topology (Sec-
tion 4.1) this throughput depends on the position of all other
STAs and their transmission probabilities τi , whereas in the
 Z Ã Ãs !!LP LCP +LP ayload
∞
2L(dk )W
Pk = 1 − 1−Q fIk (x)dx. (18)
x=0 (N0 + x)R

µ ¶
(L−1 (x))2
FXi (x) = (1 − E[τi (Di )]) + 1{P0 /rα ≤x≤P0 } E[τi (Di )] 1 − . (20)
r2
µ ¶2/α
2 P0
fXi (x) = δx (1 − E[τi (Di )]) + 1{P0 /rα ≤x≤P0 } 2 E[τi (Di )]. (21)
αr x x

case of random topologies (Section 4.2), the throughput de- probability

pends on the other STAs average location and their average
transmission probability E[τi (Di )].
Consider first the case of fixed topology. The throughput
of an STA k is given by the function Z(pk , τk ), which has
the following form:
Pn that such a transmission is successful, is equal
τ (1−p )
to i=1 Pitr i . In the case of random positions, only the
expressions of Ptr and Ps change. These expressions are
shown in Equation (26) and (27) for an STA k located at
distance dk to the AP.

Ptr = 1 − (1 − τk (dk ))(1 − E[τi (Di )])n−1 (26)

τk (1 − pk )L
Z(pk , τk ) = .
(1 − Ptr )σ + Ptr Ps Ts + Ptr (1 − Ps )Tc
(24) τk (dk )(1 − pk (dk )) + (n − 1)E[τi (Di )](1 − E[pi (Di )])
In the numerator of the throughput expression, we put Ps =
Ptr
the average number of useful bits transmitted in a slot time (27)
whereas the denominator corresponds to the average dura-
tion of a slot. σ is the physical slot time of 802.11 MAC
layer. Ts and Tc are respectively the duration of a slot
5 Model Verification and Simulation Results
(following the slot definition in the Bianchi model) when a
packet is successfully transmitted and the duration of a slot We implemented the DAW analytical model in MATLAB
when two or more packets collide. L is the payload size. and compared the results with ns-2 simulation. Our ns-
We consider MAC, IP and UDP headers in our calculation 2 simulations are based on the package described in [15].
for packet length (The sum of these headers is denoted by In this package we consider the effect of wireless physical
H.). In addition, as explained in Section 2, the PHY layer layer while simulating mobile networks. Physical layer pa-
adds to each transmission a constant PLCP preamble and rameters like path loss, fading, interference and noise com-
header of total duration tP LCP . Similar to [6], the slot time putation are added in this ns-2 simulation package. The ns-2
duration Ts and Tc for basic access mode considering ACK simulation results presented later are averaged over 10 runs
timeout, will become: with different random seeds.
We first consider a fixed topology, i.e the Di values are
 bas deterministically set. For this scenario, we used 2 network
H+L
 Ts = 2tP LCP + DIF S + + SIF S configurations as shown in Fig. 5. The first configuration

 ACK Rd
+ Rb + 2δ consists of one AP and several STAs which send CBR pack-

 ets at saturation rate to the AP using UDP connections. All
 bas H+L ACK
Tc = 2tP LCP + DIF S + Rd + SIF S + Rb STAs are located at 5 meters from the AP. In this configu-
(25) ration, we calculate the total throughput while varying the
Rb is the data rate for the basic transmission mode (i.e., number of STAs. The second configuration consists of one
1 Mbps for 802.11b) and Rd is the data rate for payload AP and 6 STAs: 5 STAs are placed at 5 meters from the
(which is 1 or 2 Mbps in our simulations). Note that for the AP and the 6th STA is moving away the AP from 1 me-
RTS/CTS access mode, all calculation regarding to packet ter to 25 meters. Each meter, it held fixed for 20 minutes
error rate should be done for RTS packets. δ is the propaga- and transmits CBR data over a UDP connection. The fixed
tion delay. STAs send continuously the same traffic as the mobile STA
We come now to the definition of Ptr and Ps in the de- to the AP. We calculate the throughput of both moving and
nominator of Equation (24). With Ptr , we denote the prob- fixed STAs for each position of the mobile node. Further,
Qnn STAs is transmitting, which
ability that at least one of the all simulations are done with two transmission modes (i.e.,
can be formulated as 1 − i=1 (1 − τi ). Further, Ps , the BPSK 1Mbps and QPSK 2 Mbps in IEEE 802.11b).

7
 3
3 when it contends for the medium with one or more
4
2 fixed STAs (Ppkt−loss−mov ).
4 2
5
5 meter
1 5 meters
5 1
Access Point
Moving From 1 to 25 meters
6
6 8
7
(a) Fixed (b) Moving
Figure 5. Network topologies.
For the first configuration, we compare the throughput
obtained with the DAW model to the ones computed from
Bianchi’s model and ns-2 simulations. We expect to ob-
tain very similar results since the probability that a packet
is erroneous, and hence dropped, is very close to one when
parallel transmissions occur (all STAs are positioned at
the same distance from the AP). The corresponding total
throughput of our distance-aware model and the Bianchi’s
model along with ns-2 simulations are shown in Fig. 6. We
can observe a very close match between our model and ns-2
simulation results.
We now use the DAW model to investigate the through-
put of the STA that moves through a fixed topology of wire-
less STAs using the second configuration explained above.
Fig. 7 shows the throughput of a fixed STA (at 5 meters
from the AP) and the throughput of the moving STA. We
also plot in the same figure the throughput obtained by an
STA if the Bianchi’s model was used. The results are very
interesting. When the moving STA is close to the AP (less
that 5 meters), its throughput is greater than the one of fixed
stations. When the moving station and fixed stations are
near each other (i.e., around 5 meters) they all have the same
throughput and it is equal to the one given by the Bianchi’s
model (which supposes that two colliding packets are auto-
matically lost). Finally, when the moving STA is far from
the AP (more than 5 meters), its receiving power level at the
AP starts to become lower than that of the close and fixed
STAs and so its packets are lost when they collide with the
ones from fixed STAs. The fixed STAs get then a higher
throughput than the moving STA and the difference is ap-
proximately equal to the bandwidth not used by the close
and fixed STAs. The Bianchi’s model is no longer good in
such moving case as shown in Fig. 7. The result is also
confirmed with ns-2 simulation as shown in the Figures.
To better illustrate the above results which are obtained
for throughput of fixed and moving STA, we evaluate and
calculate two conditional probabilities, shown in Fig. 8:
1. the probability that the moving STA loses its packet
8
2. the probability that one fixed STA loses its packet
when it contends for the medium with the moving STA
(Ppkt−loss−f ix ).
These two conditional probabilities illustrate the behav-
ior of DAW model in the second configuration where one
node moves. As an example, we calculate the second prob-
ability (Ppkt−loss−f ix ) for the case where data is trans-
mitted with 1 Mbps. Let τf ix (τmv ) be the transmission
probability of a fixed (moving) STA and df ix (dmv ) be
its distance to the AP. Equation (28) shows this probabil-
ity (Ppkt−loss−f ix ), where bino(i, 5, τf ix ) denote the pdf
of a binomial RV with parameters 5 and τf ix that is shown
in Equation (29). The sum in Equation (28) accounts for
the different possible values of the number of fixed stations
which are transmitting at the same as the moving station.
Other probability calculations (Ppkt−loss−mov and for dif-
ferent transmission rates) are straight forward.
As shown in Figure 8 both probabilities (Ppkt−loss−mov
and Ppkt−loss−f ix ) are equal to 1 when all STAs have
equal distance from AP (same as assumed by the Bianchi’s
model). Ppkt−loss−mov remains equal to 1 when the mov-
ing STA is far from the AP since its power level at the
AP is low comparing to closed and fixed stations. On the
other hand, Ppkt−loss−f ix drops to 0 at around 5 meters,
which means that closed and fixed STAs always win when
their packets collide with the packets from the moving STA
at more than 5 meters from the AP. On the other hand
Ppkt−loss−mov drops to 0, when the moving station is near
the AP (less than 5 meters) and so wins when its packets
collide with packets from fixed stations.
We now consider the random topology case, where STAs
are uniformly distributed in a disk of radius 10 meters cen-
tered at the AP. We select one STA and move it from 1 to
10 meters, and we compute its throughput averaged over all
the possible locations of the other 9 STAs using the method
explained in Section 4.2. We also compute the average
throughput of any other fixed STA. To validate these results,
we have run 250 numerical simulations (with DAW model)
for 250 realizations of the fixed topology using above sce-
nario. We then use the fixed topology method to find the
throughput per realization, and we average over all realiza-
tions.
The results are shown in Fig. 9. When the moving STA is
close to the AP, it gets a higher throughput than the average
throughput of the others, since with a high probability the
other STAs are far from the AP. However, this throughput
decreases when the STA moves farther from the AP until
it drops below the average throughput of the others. The
results for 250 realizations, shown in Fig. 9, validate our
analysis in random case (Section 4.2) as well.
 900 1600
Distance-aware Model BPSK (1Mbps) Distance-aware Model QPSK (2Mbps)
ns-2 simulation results BPSK (1 Mbps) ns-2 simulation results QPSK (2 Mbps)
Bianchi’s Model (1 Mbps) 1550 Bianchi’s Model (2 Mbps)

Mean Throughput (Kbps)

Mean Throughput (Kbps)
850
1500

800 1450

1400
750
1350

700 1300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of stations Number of stations

Figure 6. Simulation and Model comparison for fixed scenarios for left: 1 Mbps and right: 2 Mbps.

450
240 Distance Aware Model (Fixed Station) Distance Aware Model (Fixed Station)
Distance Aware Model (Moving Station) Distance Aware Model (Moving Station)
ns-2 simulation (Fixed Station) ns-2 simulation (Fixed Station)
220 ns-2 simulation (Moving Station) 400 ns-2 simulation (Moving Station)

Mean Throughput (Kbps)

Mean Throughput (Kbps)

Bianchi Model Bianchi Model

200
350
180

160 300

140
250
120

100 200
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (meter) Distance (meter)

Figure 7. Simulation and Model comparison for moving scenarios, left: 1 Mbps and right: 2 Mbps.

P5 ³ ³q ´´LP LCP +LP ayload

2L(dmv )W
i=1 bino(i, 5, τ f ix ) 1 − Q (N0 +i·L(df ix ))R
Ppkt−loss−f ix = 1 − (28)
1 − (1 − τf ix )5

X5 µ ¶
5 i
bino(i, 5, τf ix ) = τf ix (1 − τf ix )5−i δx (i). (29)
x=0
i

1 1

0.01 0.01
Probability of packet loss
Probability of packet loss

0.0001 0.0001

1e-06 1e-06

1e-08 1e-08

1e-10 1e-10

1e-12 1e-12
Packet of a fixed station corrupted by the moving station Packet of a fixed station corrupted by the moving station
Packet of the moving station corrupted by a fixed station Packet of the moving station corrupted by a fixed station
1e-14 1e-14
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (meter) Distance (meter)

Figure 8. Packet corruption probability of the moving station, left: 1 Mbps and right: 2 Mbps.

9
 150
Random topology: Moving STA
[5] C. H. Foh, M. Zukerman, “Performance Analysis of
Random topology: Fix STA the IEEE 802.11 MAC Protocol”, Proceedings of the
140 250 Realization with fixed topology: Moving STA
250 Realization with fixed topology: Fix STA
130
EW 2002 Conference, Italy.
Mean Throughput (Kbps)

120 [6] H. Wu, Y. Peng, K. Long, J. Ma, “Performance of Re-

110
100
90
80
70
60
0 2 4 6
Distance (meter)
Figure 9. Throughput calculation for random
topology, BPSK(1 Mbps).
6 Conclusion and Future Works
We presented in this paper an analytical model that ac-
counts for the positions of STAs when evaluating the per-
formance of 802.11 MAC layer. Our model achieves more
realistic results comparing to the models which do not con-
sider PHY channel conditions (e.g., in the scenarios where
the STAs move).
This model has different extensions on which we are
working on. One extension considers an AP that transmits
packets, which would allow us to find the optimal AP place-
ment for a given topology. Further extensions could con-
sider fading channel models as well. An ad-hoc mode eval-
uation to numerically approach the wireless capacity found
in [4] could be one of its extensions.
References
[1] IEEE 802.11 WG, part 11a/11b/11g , “Wireless LAN
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer
(PHY) specifications,”, Standard Specification,IEEE,
1999.
liable Transport Protocol over IEEE 802.11 Wireless
LAN: Analysis and Enhancement”, Proc. of IEEE IN-
FOCOM, vol.2, pp. 599-607, 2002.
[7] H. Kim and J. Hou, “Improving protocol capacity
with model-based frame scheduling in IEEE 802.11-
operated WLANs”, ACM MobiCom 2003, Sep. 2003.
8 10
[8] P. Chatzimisios, V. Vitsas and A. C. Boucouvalas,
“Throughput and Delay analysis of IEEE 802.11 pro-
tocol”, IEEE IWNA, UK, 2002.
[9] P. Chatzimisios, V. Vitsas and A. C. Boucou-
valas,“IEEE 802.11 Packet Delay A Finite Retry Limit
Analysis”, IEEE Globecom, vol. 2, 2003.
[10] Z. Helkov, B. Spasenovski, “Saturation Throughput-
Delay Analysis of IEEE 802.11 DCF in Fading Chan-
nel”, ICC 2003.
[11] J. G. Proakis, ”Digital Communications”, 3rd ed., Mc-
Graw Hill, New York, NY, 1995.
[12] P. Chatzimisios, V. Vitsas and A. C. Boucou-
valas,“Performance Analysis of IEEE 802.11 DCF in
Presence of Transmission Errors”, ICC 2004, Paris.
[13] J. Gosteau, M. Kamoun, S. Simoens, P. Pellati, “Ana-
lytical developments on QoS enhancements provided
by IEEE 802.11 EDCA”, ICC 2004, Paris.
[14] T. S. Rappaport, ”Wireless Communications: Princi-
ples and Practice”. Printice Hall, 1996.
[15] M.H. Manshaei and T. Turletti,“Simulation-Based
Performance Analysis of 802.11a WLANs”, In Proc.
of IST, Iran, August 2003.

[2] Giuseppe Bianchi, “Performance Anaylsis of the

IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function”,
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
Vol. 18, Number 3, March 2000.

[3] A. Kochut, A. Vasan, A. U. Shankar, A. Agrawala,

”Sniffing out the correct Physical Layer Capture
model in 802.11b”, Proceeding of ICNP 2004, Berlin,
Oct. 2004.

[4] P. Gupta, P. R. Kumar ” The Capacity of Wireless

Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Information The-
ory, Vol. 46, No. 2, March 2000.

10